Note: there has been some further dust-up in the discussion between the Joneses. I want to comment on that, and I want to say something about what I think the future holds for the church on the brink of a new decade. But before I get to those items in my next post(s), I’ve decided to publish the following one, which I wrote and left in draft form after Tony Jones posted his rebuttal and before Andrew Jones posted his response to Tony. And if you’re not following that thread, just ignore this preamble and pay attention to what follows.
Here we sit at the dawn of 2010, beginning the second decade of the 21st century, and it’s once again time to reflect and to prognosticate. I thought at one time that I would be issuing Annual Prognostications on where the emerging/missional church is and where it’s going, but since I wrote in 2007 summing up my posts from 2005 and 2006 before making some predictions for 2007 through 2009, I haven’t really stuck my neck out in the same way. In part, it’s nice to see whether you were on track or not with past predictions before tossing out the next one, and here I was so bold as to look several years into the future.
Well.
I think I can say that my assertions of what would happen from 2005 through 2007 have been basically accurate. When making widespread general predictions about what will happen on an international scale, you’re bound to get the timing a little wrong in some regions even if it’s right in others, so looking at a timespan like 2005-07 allows us to say that, yes, perhaps certain things didn’t happen exactly in 2006 (for example), but they did occur within this general timespan. So far, so good.
Now we come to the analysis and opinion of a few others at the moment, most notably Andrew Jones, who wrote the other day, Emerging Church Movement (1989 – 2009)? The post is excellent, and insightful, and I agree with him. Unfortunately, many people have mistaken his intent and assumed that he was saying the emerging church movement is dead. Some have taken to eulogizing the movement, and others to disputing what they think Andrew has said.
Although he’s increasingly at odds with much of the movement, Bob Hyatt posted a nice list: 5 Things I’ve loved about the Emerging Church movement… He doesn’t really say whether he things the movement is dead, but I like the approach he’s taken even as a critic.
Tony Jones gave Andrew a thoughtful rebuttal, Lonnie Frisbee and the Non-Demise of the Emerging Church. Unfortunately, Tony’s main point of disagreement is the presumed death of the movement, which Andrew hasn’t claimed. Setting that aside, Tony’s response has some good ideas particularly in its latter half — though I’m not comfortable with the characterization of Calvary Chapel and the Vineyard as an attempt to capture the charisma of Lonnie Frisbee and make a living from it, as this implies John Wimber had no charisma of his own. There are, however, some other unfortunate parallels in what Tony suggests, and you’ll have to read his post before deciding whether Brian McLaren is this generation’s Lonnie Frisbee. And I do agree with Tony’s final point that “the question that looms over the ECM is whether it will become domesticated as the first generation of leadership passes the mantle to the second. But, the truth is, the answer to that lies …with you.”
Then too, you may have to ask whether domestication is a bad thing… and not everyone will come up with the same answer to that one. And this leads us to Andrew Jones’ followup post, 10 types of emerging church that will no longer upset your grandfather. The summary is a good one, though the comments bear out plainly that one of the types, the “churchless Christians” (#9) are not yet free of criticism, even from within the emerging church movement. Sadly we’ve got a ways to go on that one yet, and the more I read the criticisms, the more I want to call myself churchless. This category in particular requires more openness and understanding from within the emerging/missional movement first, as almost all of the objections I have seen misunderstand this group of people — both the nature of the group and of what they’re saying or practicing.
But hold up a moment.
If I were to sum up what Andrew is saying in a nutshell, it’s that during 2009, the emerging church movement has become more acceptable to mainstream Christianity. I suppose to some, that’s a kind of death… but those are the people who need to ask themselves whether they got into this movement to reform their own experience of church, or just to get away from their parents and weird uncle Edgar. I’m just sayin’.
So here’s part of what I wrote in January 2007:
As we move past 2008 into 2009 then, there will be a greater willingness on the part of both emerging and established churches to work together or to see things from the same viewpoint. Having been willing to consider missional endeavours together, or at least in the same way, an increased willingness to consider common theological ground will begin, and a deeper level of open conversation will result. This is where it will get uncomfortable for many in the emerging church, as we don’t want to become the thing we rejected, and it may seem to some that the emerging church is institutionalizing. Perhaps some will, but this is what is anticipated in my metaphor of “Saul’s armour.” Some will feel they can grow into it, others won’t, but there will be a renewed and more widespread conversation going on, with a genuine openness on both sides.
Do I think it will take three more years before the established church is accepting of the emerging church? I’m not sure, I doubt it will take that long in every case, but in some cases it will take longer. As closely as I can from this vantage point though, I think I’m offering a general idea of when the tide will turn.
We’re watching the foundations being laid for Church 2.0. Remember folks, you heard it here first.
Now I don’t want to say I told you so… but I will say that I’m not surprised about where we are today. We’re exactly where I thought we’d be. Whether the emerging church is becoming domesticated or the traditional church is becoming rogue or we’re all just meeting in the radical middle, the effect is the same even though the label changes with the perspective of the wielder.
Subscribe Posts
January 6th, 2010 at 3:05 am
” Or we’re all just meeting in the radical middle”, That maybe the intersection we’ve all found ourselves. I still think there are things that the church needs to engage in this profound space of uncertainty we find ourselves. Maybe the label is no longer relevant, the imagination that sparked the embryonic beginnings of the emerging conversation will be needed as the church navigates it’s way forward. Some of the responses I’ve seen in comments of late concerns me. The conversation that was filled with charity, humility and hospitality…seems to have taken a harsh turn. Anyways, Brother Maynard I always appreciate the wisdom you share in this conversation.
January 6th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Thanks, Ron. It feels like a lot of people wanting to leave the ec label to the wolves… not because it’s an inherently bad label (it isn’t), but because of some of the associations it’s taken on. Not sure we can really shift the blame for that very far off the movement’s participants.
January 6th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Dang good post, not just because my name appears soany times throughout (I should tell my mother to look) but because u understood me through my poorly worded blog post. Thanks
January 6th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
All God’s people say, Amen. It really bugged me me when people started weaving Tony’s personal life into the comments.
But as to the content of Tony’s post, I’m sort of caught in between, I get it…and I don’t get it. The marriage thing over the past couple of years, it’s been like flogging a dead horse. Every election it seems to raise the hackles of the church. It’s on a very short leash, as to it’s effectiveness. It’s barks, and tries to bite but doesn’t cover much ground. It’s a red herring, the pinnacle of morality for much of the church. Brother…maybe you can tell me as to when marriage be came a mandate for the church. Maybe if Jesus hadn’t served so much wine at that wedding in Cana, we might have a better picture of the details ( just Joking ). In my mind it might be best to let the State, licsence and take care of the legal side of it…and let the Church bless what they want. I know in my own marriage of 33 years, the legality, the paper work side has never ever been it’s focus. It has never been what keeps it together. There have been times when I’ve had my bags packed by the front door. But it has always been the profound divine covenant that my wife and I made with each other in the presence of God. There is something beyond imagination, a bond like the physics of intermolecular forces in that covenant of marriage. Let the State have law of marriage…let the church lay claim to the grace, the imagination and the bond of that covenant. Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is his. But, again Bro’ this might be all hot wind. For as Buck said, ” I don’t know. I don’t speak wind.”
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 6th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Ron,
I’m confused as to why Tony’s personal life would NOT have a bearing on what he’s been saying. Perhaps you could unpack this for me. (This is not an attack as I value you as a gracious brother in Christ.)
I am profoundly pissed at how easily people break the marital covenant – but still want their opinions front and centre on the topic of marriage. And when the wife of your youth and, no doubt, your children are in profound pain at your marital breakup, this might be a good time to step away from the spotlight, step off of your soapbox and submit to some wise elder counsel.
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 6th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Bill, you have absolutely no idea about the details of my personal life.
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 6th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
To all readers: this post is unabashed gossip. Anything based on rumor and innuendo is, by definition, gossip, and therefore sinful. Indeed, it borders on bearing false witness.
I urge you to take whatever action you deem appropriate when you ate confronted by sinful behavior. I have.
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 6th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
I’m sorry Tony but your story is splashed across a million pixels in the Twitter, blog and interwebbed universe. Predominantly by you.
Removed an ad hominem bit here — Bro.M.
Just a reminder that I’d like to refocus the discussion onto the pros and cons of what Tony suggested in his post rather than aspects of his personal life. If there’s a time and place for that kind of discussion, this isn’t it.
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 6th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
For clarity, I’ve tried to remove references to the rumour and criticism *in the post* that Tony refers to in the comment above. I don’t think he means to say that my interaction about the refusal to perform legal marriages is gossip, since that’s the point of his post. The same may not apply to the comments.
And again, the topic of the conversation following will be the point of Tony’s post on performing legal vs. sacramental marriages.
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 6th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Ron,
As long as the church gets the wine in the deal, eh? ;^)
I agree that it’s rarely the legal aspect that weighs in on making a marriage “work”, but the sacramental one… though I’ve seen people apply a legalistic approach too often to a sacramental bond. (Still think the difference between an annulment and a divorce is pretty thin.)
I’m thinking the merger of the two was simply expedience, but I don’t know for certain. Somebody has to witness for legality, so it turns out to be the clergy. Or the JP. Or the captain of a ship, maybe?
Wish I could speak “wind.”
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 6th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Bill,
The way someone’s personal life would / would not have a bearing is probably that it may reflect on why they said something or how they might have experienced it, but that isn’t always directly related to whether or not what they’re saying is valid.
Just a thought.
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 6th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
Well … I’ll give my two cents on Tony’s list as well. I’d hate to put something on his blog for fear of being (virtually) shot by his followers. And that is the thing I find most disturbing about this whole controversy. It’s not who said what or when or to whom, but it’s the lines in the sand being drawn in the comments by people who appear to be claiming sides. I’m not interested in sides or, who is following Tony and who claims Andrew, and who claims Apollo … I’m interested in reading that which will assist me in following Christ. I thought the ECM was about finding a third way, not defending one’s turf. But I could be wrong.
* There is no “historic” institution of marriage; it has been a fluid concept for thousands of years, changing with time and across cultures
Well … it depends on how one defines marriage. If one is defining marriage by current Western standards, then … this would be a true statement. However, every culture currently and in the past has some form of ceremony which solemnizes and creates a unity between two people; most generally speaking, a man and a woman. Most of us wouldn’t recognize the “marriage” ceremonies of other cultures, but they are no less binding within that culture.
* Our society has determined that monogamy is good, so we incentivize it in various ways
I’d disagree with this. As a part of the animal kingdom (mammals) human beings are (again, generally) monogamous and mate for life. Yes, there are (sub)cultures which allow polygamy, but those are not generally well accepted amongst the mainstream of the larger world population. Yes, I do remember Muslims in this. Some few Muslims continue to practice this, however, there are very stark restrictions on a husband’s ability to marry and keep a second wife and they are limited to four. The majority of Muslim husbands have only one wife. It is becoming less and less acceptable.
* It’s a plain reality that gay and lesbian couples are among us, and they’re not going away
True dat … but it’s also true that alcoholics are among us and they’re not going away either. So do we allow them to continue to kill themselves and create untold emotional havoc on the lives of their families without doing something? I’m not drawing parallels between alcoholics and homosexual couples, I’m just saying that this reasoning is specious. Just because something exists amongst us, it does not necessarily follow that we we need to promote, encourage or otherwise do anything to make things easier for it to occur.
* So let’s afford them similar incentives toward monogamy by allowing them to enter the binding contract that we call “legal marriage”
I actually agree with this, except for the slightly distasteful insinuation that homosexuals somehow **need** an incentive to remain monogamous. I know several homosexual couples who have been monogamous for years and years without the incentives that Tony speaks of here. Many of them would be satisfied with being allowed to have civil unions.
FTR, I agree with this because I see it as a step which will help strengthen the marriage bonds because it will negate the need to give benefits to non-married couples who have been living together. This way, the state can again promote the state of matrimony without discriminating against homosexual couples. So can large (global) companies such as Disney and the like.
* This will not implicate what any congregation or denomination considers a “sacramental marriage”
The civil unions that some states currently perform (e.g. Vermont) do NOT currently implicate what any congregation or denomination considers a marriage. There is not one church in Vermont which has been forced to perform civil unions because of the law. Really, the whole hoopla over marriage is a tempest in a teapot which is encouraged by people (politicians) with less than pristine interests at heart.
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 6th, 2010 at 9:48 pm
I don’t have anything to add to the comments on any side, I just have a question.
What makes a marriage in the eyes of God? Does it need to adhere to the culture in which it exists? Does some ’set-apart’ priest need to perform some ritual? Or can a man and a woman [or same sexed - not getting into that debate] just decide to consummate themselves to each other?
As the ‘un-churched’ Christianity continues to grow, with the emphasis on the equality and the priest hood of all believers, is there a possibility that this is being raised or will be raise?
Just some thoughts that were raised as I read these blogs.
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 7th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
i find this discussion very intersting… I have been thinking a lot about marriage, and the deconstruction of our legal institutions surrounding it when I got married myself (living in a country where only the state can perform marriages) and I have a more realist view on marriage (see http://bramboniusinenglish.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/the-emerging-joneses-and-my-anarchist-marriage/)
My controversial and unorthodox opinion is that marriage is too important to let the state define it, and that it’s already been defined by creation. (Just as Jesus went back to creation and not to the -godgiven- laws of moses when the pharisees tried to trick him in a divorce debate) and I think in a world where the legal marriage has not much meaning and is irrelevant (as it is here in belgium) that we Christians should be able to show just with our lives the value of marriage, and to let our vows be lived out. Let our yes-word be a yesword!!!
The whole current Emerging church situation is getting too complicated for my poor mind… But I pray whatever happens, that God will be able to use all for the advance of His Kingdom… It’s not about Emergent/ing/ence but about His Kindom!!!
shalom
Bram
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 10th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
I was once part of a church during it’s fall into the ground and die part and then it’s regrowth. As it turned out, it was still a regular old church with prettier window dressing … the people were still meaner than snakes.
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 10th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
From all the stuff that has come out in the last couple of weeks, this is absolutely refreshing…you’ve captured the height, depth and breadth of whats has transpired…and given us a glimpse ahead.
I think emergent ” as a person ” is in hospice and likely won’t recover. But, I think emergent ” as spirit ” will live on. For me, it’s hard to say when the shift happened, maybe the (e)merger with Youth Specialties and Zondervan. There’s always something about labels, a product and marketing. It’s the reality of a best before date…the product can go stale, not good for consumption. Sadly, in a sense, the very thing it tried to avoid becoming…it became.
I think, the label might be dead or near death…but, I think the spirit of the conversation is still alive will continue to live. There is still a matrix of tough faith conversation and practice ahead…interfaith dialog, engaging pluralism, reconstructing theology around redemptive imagination. And I see new people entering the conversation, christians with Cosmology, Ecology, Science and Philosophy backgrounds…stretch the boundaries of faith. May we not be in such a hurry to label, and sell something as much as to encourage each other to find a language, and practice to re-imagine life…to see the Hope, the Kingdom that Jesus reveals.
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 10th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
The history of most movements within the church over the past 50 years is that they rarely remain a standalone faction. This doesn’t mean they fizzled or failed, instead, they invariably are integrated in some form into the mainstream. Emerging and missional movements will undoubtedly follow a similar path here in North America – missional more so that emerging in my view do to the liberal theological bent of EV.
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 14th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Hello! You remain as ever a challenging thinker and excellent writer. Though i disagree with a divide you seem to suggest between missional praxis and emergent theology (I could be misunderstanding you here), I resonated deeply with this thought:”So who moved? Everyone. Nobody’s really standing still here, everyone’s reacting to changes in culture and in the face of the church.” I haven’t read a truer statement in the recent blogs around this topic. Thank you!
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 27th, 2010 at 7:31 am
Man! the closing of the post really resonates my feelings. I hate to say it, but, christianity has become the churches idol. We have always spoke from a place of entitlement, the authority on ” God.” It was interesting I was out for dinner with my wife and friends on the weekend, and I told people I no longer indentify myself as a christian. I felt like I had come out of the closet, or an AA meeting. Some friends were shocked, but not really surprised. I really indentify myself with Jesus and the Kingdom, that is the anchor from which I live life from. I think I can live from that profound mysterious truth with out all the clutter of religious trappings. I read the Koran over the summer…maybe I’m going to hell now. But I could see beauty, and truths in their sacred texts…I don’t live out of that story. But I can relate to parts of it. Surely, the way to the future will be in humble conversation with other religions. I believe behind the noise of the religious fundamentalists, there are alot of people that want to listen and learn from one another.We can circle the wagons, retreat from the world, protect and fight…and starve to death, and miss on what God is doing in the world now. As I write this, the Anglican Diocese here closed 19 churches today. How do you say…irrelevant.
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 31st, 2010 at 7:29 am
What a great post Bro Maynard.
When they came to forcibly make Him the king – he withdrew from the election. His goal was never to take over the civil government and make this a better place to live.
When He commanded them to cast the nets on the other side and the catch almost sunk the boats – they never took over the marketplace – they left their nets and boats and followed Him.
In the end, the governments, the marketplace, and the world’s religions will align themselves against Him – and His followers will be there with Him – in the margins – having left Egypt – having crossed the Red Sea – having left Babylon – being like Abraham – really have no where to go except follow Him.
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence